Environmental assets cross state boundaries and are prey to greedy state governments. Only Federal environmental laws have so far prevented their destruction.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S handover of environmental approval powers to the states for development projects will wind back 30 years of legal protection for the environment and put at risk Australia's World Heritage areas such as the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.

At the same time, state governments are seeking to 'fast track' major developments, such as coal mine and coal seam gas projects, reducing public participation and removing legal rights of local communities to mount legal challenges.

The Federal Government will soon make the states responsible for "matters of national environmental significance" listed under the main Federal law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). These matters include World Heritage areas, threatened species, wetlands of international significance, migratory species, water resources and uranium mines.

Under the EPBC Act, the Federal Government has had responsibility for assessing and approving developments likely to have a significant impact on these matters. This Federal oversight has provided an important check on state powers that has helped ensure Australia's most important natural assets are managed appropriately. The changes will mean state and territory governments, alone, will decide whether to approve projects that will impact on these areas of national interest.

The Bill to implement this so called 'one-stop-shop' approach is currently before the Senate and, if passed, will also allow the states to decide on the 'water trigger' which currently requires the Federal Government to assess major coal mines and coal seam gas projects with potential impacts on water resources such as the Murray Darling river system or the Great Artesian Basin — both of which traverse several states.

The Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt has so far proposed bilateral agreements to delegate environmental approvals with NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT and set a deadline of September for agreements to be in place with the other states and territories. These agreements set up a single assessment and approvals process to satisfy both State and Federal environmental law requirements, to be undertaken by the state or territory alone.

The Federal Government says the handover of environmental approval powers to the states is designed to remove duplication and 'green tape' which is restricting development, whilst maintaining environmental standards. However, a Federal Senate inquiry in March last year found no substantive evidence that the existing regulatory arrangements were imposing unnecessary costs on business, nor would a 'one-stop-shop' process improve business efficiency. Claims of duplication also appear tenuous as states do not currently consider matters of national environmental significance when assessing and approving projects.

Conflicts of interest

The handover of environmental approval powers to the states is flawed because it ignores the inherent conflict of interest for state and territory governments when considering state-based projects. For example, state governments may stand to gain tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments if they approve major mining or coal seam gas projects. In major infrastructure projects like port expansions or highways, the state may be both the proponent and approval authority.

Historically, the demise of the Murray-Darling river system before Federal intervention provides a glaring example of the inability of the states to consider the national interest or prioritise the national interest over their own financial and political interests.

The Federal Government rarely uses its powers to frustrate state-based developments, but when it does, it does to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts on nationally significant environmental features

Minister Hunt's 'one-stop-shop' laws will accredit state planning laws which have consistently failed to reach Federal standards for environmental protection, particularly for threatened species. The Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices undertook an audit of threatened species in 2012 and found that "no state or territory biodiversity or planning laws currently meet the suite of Federal environmental standards necessary to effectively and efficiently protect biodiversity."

This is also plain from the 2011 State of Environment Report which found that, across Australia, "our unique biodiversity is in decline, and new approaches will be needed to prevent the accelerating decline in many species." Australia has one of the worst rates of extinction in the world.

Community shut out

As Federal environmental approval powers are being handed to the states, communities are being shut out of government decision-making and the legal rights of communities, at state level, to challenge contentious major projects are being stripped away.

In Queensland, the proposed Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill will mean 90 per cent of proposed projects would not be open for community comment or objection.

In NSW, opportunities for merit appeals for contentious major developments such as coal mines and coal seam gas projects have all but disappeared. This is despite the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption recommending to the NSW Government that the scope of these type of legal appeals be extended as an anti-corruption measure.

Since the landmark Federal intervention in 1983 to prevent the Franklin Dam development in Tasmania, the need for Federal involvement in environmental approvals has been well recognised. The Federal Government rarely uses its powers to frustrate state-based developments, but when it does, it does to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts on nationally significant environmental features.

Faster approvals that deliver poor quality, high risk or unsustainable development are not in the public interest. They are likely to result in water and air pollution, biodiversity decline, and erode community trust in government decision-making.

Any reforms to national environmental regulation must lift the standard of environmental protection rather than lower it. Unfortunately for our iconic natural areas and unique threatened species, the 'one-stop shop' will not achieve this.

Actions

Share

Comments (10)

P Freeman :

14 Sep 2014 10:22:31pm

I think the public should be able to sue the responsible politicians for laws passed which have resulted in damage to the environment and life, and where there was scientific evidence presented at the time to show that this could occur. . Mind you, I cant see the pollies making that a law

Mrs williams :

09 Sep 2014 11:22:35pm

unfortunately most people don't actually care about the environmentmost have no idea what our natural and native treasures are. Education and self driven learning about what is vulnerable and why is not a priority, so governments and laws can't be blamed for that. The largest populations and that includes voters, and most politicians and probabbly most journalists and reporters... pop out to the environment for a while and head off back to the unreal world that they left a short while ago, spruking about bad things in the environment.Talk the talk and actually get on with doing something constructive, make a positive step.................a good start............ get some action on feral animals, feral plants and some of those junk food containers on the edge of the road. If you bought it you take the rubbish home with you, take some personal responsibility encourage others to do the same, that would be something that even a politician or policy maker could do.....many hands make light work

xxx :

There has well over 30 years of self serving bureaucratic red tape that has done nothing except line the pockets and feed the religion of self serving ideological greens.

And what do they want?, more environmental protection. This isn't anything but socialist greed masquerading as environmentalism. Most people don't want a North Korean style environmental propaganda façade anymore. The whole purpose of government is to keep out ideological self serving fantasy, yet the above article advocates getting more of it. Sorry but you can go to North Korea to see where that leads.

Its a disgrace that the national broadcaster is being used in articles such as above to serve deep green ideological interests, who serve no one but themselves and their misguided religion.

Microseris :

04 Sep 2014 6:19:53pm

Yes I think you summed up your position with your first line.The governments of this land worship two religions, the imaginary man in the sky and the dollar. And watch out if you get between conservative politician/voter and a dollar. On every measurable metric environmental values are being lost or eroded.

You would have to be a fool not to understand that any economic system that requires infinite growth in a finite system to service interest on debt cannot last.

pardon :

Line green pockets? I don't think so, unless you think there's been a green-led government in the last 30 years.

More environmental protection? No, I don't think you've read it properly. They want the same level.

North Korea? You're on some kind of odd tangent, I don't think they have any kind of environmental policies whatsoever.

Purpose of government to keep out ideological fantasy? Yes, exactly. Which is why government (meaning beaurocrats) at a Federal level need oversight into state-run Political nightmares that put corrupt developer/mining/business interests first and the law second.

So basically you are stating that the current system is actually desirable and should stay, because Government (not politics) keeps fanatics away from the controls.

Disgrace of the ABC? Well it's your ABC. And mine. And everyones. I don't think you can be so selfish as to say what they can and can't say - that's a bit North Korean of you if you ask me.

Slippery Slope :

04 Sep 2014 8:06:54am

Even with Federal intervention, and given the comfortable position Australia has been in, our management of the natural environment has been abysmal. The one stop shop will only exacerbate this failure, perhaps moreso in Queensland with no Senate safety valve.Unfortunately, most kids today have no personal exposure to the natural environment, its beauty, or its importance to our long-term well being, and so have no real idea of our effects on it, what they are losing, or the eventual tragic consequences.Unfortunately, most economists do not factor in the costs of the eventual devastation of the natural environment in their (clearly unsustainable) "economic growth" models, thus allowing (and sometimes encouraging) poor decisions.Unfortunately, most politicians are focussed only on their current term, and as such are poor custodians for most long term issues.Unfortunately many of our current politicians seem to be happy to ignore quality science, no matter how extensive, when it suits their cause.Sadly, the standard of environmental care in Australia has become embarrassing, both locally and internationally. Sadly, it has become hard not to just give up!

Silver Lining :

Avargo :

05 Sep 2014 7:11:04am

Oh they'll call it progress. And when our climate and air is on a par with China, where everyday people going about their business wear mouth and nose guards to try to protect them from the toxic air, the people who make up this current batch of Liberal Government will be dead or close to it and will no doubt blame it on who ever is in charge then.

Australia will have lost relevance as a tourist destination. Australia will no longer be " The Lucky Country "

blixen :

The only answer to these acts of environmental vandalism will be massive public protests, like that over the Franklin Dam.

And if that fails then these 'development thugs' will need to be taken to court again and again.

The big question that arises is funding. Your Network and other environmental groups will need to really investigate the new phenomenon of 'crowd funding' and other sources of funds from concerned wealthy private individuals - a lot of publicity and pr work needs to be done.

An example of the success of this approach is the setting up of the privately funded Climate Council after the Climate Commission was axed by Tony Abbott and his cronies.

Average Joe :

03 Sep 2014 2:56:20pm

With the states in competition with each other in a race to the bottom for development dollars, the Commonwealth has played an important umpire's role. Now the game will be played without an umpire. Does anyone seriously believe the rules will be adhered to?

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Environment. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.

Best of abc.net.au

Rubik's Cube world record

An Indian man has solved five Rubik's Cube puzzles with one hand in just one minute and 23 seconds.